Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:07:16 +0000 |
Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > > > I have wailed about parts of the XSLT 1.1 proposal, but I feel that we - > > the XSLT community - will achieve more if we build on each other's > > efforts. Given the choice between an approach which slots into XSLT 1.1 > > and the 1.1 / 2.0 schedule and one which ignores both, I think the first > > approach has a higher chance of widespread adoption and widespread user > > benefit. > > I disagree. There is no such thing as an XSLT 1.1 implementation now (no, the > latest Saxon doesn't count) and there won't be until XSLT 1.1 is a REC, which > will be for perhaps a year yet. > > We really need to watch our premature adoption of W3C specs. They can change > *drastically* before they even get to PR/CR status, and even as PRs or CRs, as > XHTML and SVG illustrated, they can change quite a bit before REC. > > I think we should focus on XSLT 1.0, since one can only speculate about XSLT > 1.1. Well, I would accept that a successful XSLT 1.0 exercise might change the XSLT 1.1 requirements landscape in a positive way. But I would like to limit the scope so that it doesn't end up competing with 1.1 or 2.0 on too many issues. Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Clark C. Evans |
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, David . Rosenborg | Date | [xsl] TRAX API in JAXP 1.1 - Parame, Dylan Walsh |
Month |